Monday, May 7, 2007

Huckabee, in a conference call with reporters the morning after the debate, explained how he would have responded if given a chance to elaborate on the question:

"If you want to believe that you and your family came from apes, that's fine. I'll accept that," he said Friday. "I just don't happen to think that I did."

As for what should be taught in public schools, Huckabee said he wants "schools to acknowledge that there are views that are different than evolution."

Huckabee downplayed the role evolution should have in the election. "Is a president going to sit in the Oval Office and really make a decision on what's being taught in a third-grade class in Dubuque, Iowa, on creation or evolution?" he said. "The answer is no."

Huckabee's views about his faith are sincere. Prior to his political career Huckabee was pastor of several Southern Baptist churches. He also served as president of the Arkansas Baptist State Convention.

People who have their heads up their ass and have not bothered to read any science are quick to paint evolutionary theory as'magical' but please take a look at dogs. Humans bred them for certain shapes and forms. Evolution does the same thing to all species, only not so fast and not so end-minded

Using dog breeding as an example of evolution is laughable. Breeding removes certain genes, it does not add them. You could never breed a great Dane from a chihuahua. Dog breeds came from a genetically varied common ancestor dog, probably akin to a heinz-57. Evolution presupposes the addition of genetic information. Adaptation has always been the loss of genetic information. As to salvation: Jesus Christ is the Way the Truth and the Life. Nobody goes to heaven but by Him. (paraphrase of John 14:6)

i am dyslexic and pray to dog. dog breed is a valuable analogy to evolution. bacterial reproduction with a genetic change for survival with every million divisions would answer the genetic variability. About great danes and chihuahuas look at cock a poos. THey are tiny if mom is a micro poodle or almost cocker sized if mom is a cocker. It all follows the same rules from viruses to whales. I suggest those who think evolution is only a theory could jump off a building since gravity too is only a theory requiring a similar leap of faith. Faith is self fulfilling prophesy.

Michael, you don't anything about evolution. Dog breeding is an example of selection for new genes.Darwin used the example of pigeon breeding to explain selection and then natural selection. You should read the Origin of Species so you can be better informed about the discussion is all about.

I’m a life long Evolution supporter and frankly, believe that the debate between Creation and Evolution is about as useful as debating chocolate cake v. tennis balls. But since the war will be waged, I must caution my science-minded brethren of the risk of using dog breeding in their defense. Breeding necessitates the presence of a Breeder, which if I were a Creationist, would use to fuel my argument. Thankfully, I am not.

I find the fact that any serious presidential candidate would not accept evolution as science appalling. Either the politician does not understand science or is not courageous enough to deal with the massive ignorance that is out there. If you have any doubts, take a look at the Dover decision, http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

As to visualizing how it works, I think the most amazing display is the evolution of horses at the Museum of Natural History in New York. http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/expeditions/treasure_fossil/Treasures/Evolution_of_Horses/horses.html?50

The reason why acceptance of evolution is important is a good test for Presidential candidates is also simple.

If you don't betlieve in it, what other basic science don't you accept?

Personally, I do not understand why people find evolution incompatible with religion. As the Catholic Shcurch's International Theological Commission wrote in 2002

"[A]ccording to the Catholic understanding of divine causality," the commission wrote, "true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence."

I salute Mike Huckabee for having the courage to take a stand against you pagan evolutionists. Where were you 5 billion years ago or even 6000 thousand years ago? God designed and created all things and loves all you ignorant humans who think you have all the answers with your pseudo-science. You pseudo-scientists change your mind every time the wind blows. You can't reproduce what God through Jesus has done and you can't accurately explain much of it either!

Wooh. This Jim guy is a nutcase. Evolution is backed by science and universally accepted by the science community. Creationism, isn't. Why, because you cannot apply the scientific method for it. It is merely pieces of information take from various data to try to make their model fit.

I have a BS in Biology from a major university in this country. Universally accepted is a bit strong.

There are plenty of scientists out there that share my world view that acknowledges the Creator God and still hold that evolution is an unproven theory. Not all of them are going to speak out because they want to keep their jobs.

As for you, truth, I feel sorry for any one that feels that the Holy Scriptures is a book of fairy tales.

Also, you and your beloved scientific community whom you apparently worship haven't proven much either.

Jim said:"I have a BS in Biology from a major university in this country" Sure you do Jim. Let me guess, Bob Jones University. Perhaps "universally accepted" is a bit strong. How about "planetarally accepted"? How you can do biology and not accept the single unifying priciple of that science is beyond me.

The difference between "evolutionists" and "creationists" (or "intelligent-designists" or whatever) is that the creationists already know the answer: to quote a bumper sticker, "God said it and I believe it and that settles it." Evolutionists have a much harder job - every piece of evidence (fossil, biological, whatever) is a potential challenge to the theory of evolution. The evidence that organisms evolve is pretty compelling - antibiotic-resistant bacteria are available anytime for a debate! The evidence that humans evolved from "lower" life forms is also pretty substantial, but surely has lots of surprises left for us.

Evolutionists are often accused of being closed-minded for not allowing "alternative explanations" into the classroom, but nothing could be more closed-minded than mandating the answer at the start and trying to adjust all information to fit that view. And that's just not science.

So to me, the main difference between evolutionists and creationists is that the former are continually looking to refine their understanding, while the latter are continually looking to validate theirs.

Having spent 7 years being led by someone who knew the answers without (or in spite of) any supporting information, I'm sure not eager to continue that trend.

So Mike, go ahead and lead a flock of your faithful; Baptist minister is the perfect job! But we need more critical thinking from the leader of our nation.

I do want to say this as well. I'm sorry if I came across a little bent when I first entered this little debate and I hope I did not alienate anyone.

I try my best to be a sincere Christian who truely loves his neighbor.

If I saw you on the street and it was obvious you needed help, I'm not going to ask you if you what your party affiliation is or what you think about evolution. I would just help you.

I think what troubles us Christian Conservatives the most is the lack of acknowledgement of our Creator.

This Separation of Church and State stuff has gone way too far. God has blessed our nation so much. Why would we turn our back on Him?

Walk around DC and inside our federal government buildings and you see acknowledgement of GOD all over the place.

It is blatantly obvious to me that the Founding Fathers were believers in God.

But yet when I go to a Natural Science museum, I am supposed to tell my precious children that it all happened by chance and that is the only option I am supposed to give them?

This is probably one of the biggest reasons homeschooling is growing. I'm sure most homeschoolers teach their kids both options.

There needs to be more choice out there as far as education is concerned. We have competition in just about everything else.

I've got to admit, I have struggled at times to understand how the science I learned in high school and college fits with what I have learned about the Bible.

The result has been I think a stronger faith in God and I believe I have found answers that are as close to being correct as anyone else has come up with.

For example, I believe that after the first sentence in the Bible a large expanse of time probably did happen. The account in Genesis may just be describing a re-creation of the earth after an earlier calamity during which the dinosaurs and so called "neanderthal man" were destroyed.

If this is true, Noah would not have had to worry about getting dinosaurs on the ark.

At some point in the ancient past the devil did rebel because evil was already present in the garden.

Hey Jim,What should I tell your Hindu brothers or your Budist brothers or your Islamic brothers? Are their stories of creation any less valid then our Christain stories? Is their US citizenship in this great country any less valid then yours or mine? ChurchState is there for a reason. Even within the Christain faiths there is large diversity of beliefs. ChurchState is there so that for example the Catholics cannot impose their views on the Protestent denominations. I would think our founding fathers would agree with that.

Hello Annonymous. I actually agree with you. I hear what you are saying.

May be all my brothers' stories need to be heard including the Catholic way of thinking. Isn't this what education is all about?

I've got the sense to realize that most of our spiritual teaching should come from home and church.

My point is that evolution and big bang in the way they are taught (at least to me that is) seem to make no room for GOD at all.

This is the difference I see when I walk around Washington and read all the wonderful inscriptions acknowledging GOD and then I go to a Natural Science museum and the idea of a Creator is no where to be found.

I think things have gotten a little out of balance. I believe that there are probably thousands of good Christian Public school teachers who are showing the love of Christ to their students and I think that's wonderful.

I think its a little silly when it they feel like its "taboo" to share their personal opinion with their students that they believe GOD created it all. I don't mean that the teacher should necessarily start giving the students a bible study.

The thing about science is it has to work no matter which sky-fairy you believe in. Evolution works in the Hindu population as much as it does in evangelical christians. So does gravity and strong nuclear force even though those are also just "theories".Only the laziest scientist would ever appeal to the "Quetzalcoatl did it" argument.

This issue shows for sure that Huckabee is a crazy fringe candidate that shouldn't be President. Any man that thinks the Earth was created 6000 years ago shouldn't be given the time of day in Presidential politics. Do we really want this man to become President? Doesn't the US already have a bad name as it is in the field of science and we're going to compound the problem by having this guy represent us? I don't think so. I can't in good conscious vote for a man who's crazy enough to think that dinosaurs fossils are some sort of conspiracy by paleontologists.

This is hardly the forum to debate the theory of evolution - there are plenty of resources out there for the intellectually inquisitive, and any thinking person can judge for themselves which arguments make more sense. Nor does arguing from authority make much of an impact - no creationist will ever be swayed by what a majority of scientists say, just as no evolutionist will give any more creedence to someon just because they have a degree in biology (and if he had a degree from Harvard, would that make any difference?). For what it's worth, I think this link has the best evidence against Huckabee's claim that he is not descended from an ape: http://jcnot4me.com/items/spoofs/the_bush_monkey.htm

Scientists dispute the theory of evolution just about as much as they dispute the idea that we live in a heliocentric solar system. Too bad christian fundamentalists never seem to learn from their mistakes.

Evolution can be repeatedly proven on the microbial level, and it is widely supported by conclusive evidence regarding macro-organisms, yet evangelicals continue to attack it as if it actually has an affect on their religion. I wonder why you seem to crave reinforcement of your religious beliefs from irrelevant areas of society such as science, politics, and a supposedly secular education system.

You attack Dr. Steve because his "system of religion... evolution has not been proven", but what about your own system of religion? How much proof can you offer for it?

With regards to your "founding fathers" comment, there seems to be an inconsistency with your argument: our founding fathers felt so strongly about the issue that they wanted to ensure that this country was founded with a clearly defined separation of church and state, in spite of their predominantly christian religious beliefs. Perhaps this was because they studied European history and realized what a mess can be made when religion gets intermingled with politics.

So I am curious... why do you feel the need to impose your own religious beliefs on others, through supposedly secular systems (ie: the public education system), especially when doing so is detrimental to science in this country?

Sorry up front for the long post. I can't believe I actually read through all this but I did want to see what Huckabee actually said.

Why can't there be a middle ground? The idea of a "Creator" and the "fact" of evolution are not mutually exclusive.

I have no issue with believing that a "higher being" brought the universe into being. Depending on where, when and to whom you were born, that "higher being" has a lot of different names.

The "higher being" could certainly have designed a system that we now see as evolution - a system that allowed living forms to evolve into the different life forms that we see on the planet now. I have a lot more faith that the record of life we see in the ground (fossils) and the virtually infinite varieties of life we see around us are the result of a system that is evolving as opposed to the view that a "creator" created every single life form on the planet in it's exact current form.

I know there are fundamentalists on both sides of this. Yes, the Earth could have been "created" in six days about 6,000 years ago (although it begs the question why the "creator" would have placed fossils in the ground and allowed us to "discover" radio-carbon dating to measure their age). And yes, the universe may have appeared from no-where billions of years ago with the ingredients for life (although it begs the question about how the "no-where" came into being). The reality is that there is a huge number of people in the middle ground who don't hold either fundamentalist belief.

And a huge number of people who don't understand why the Democrats and Republicans can't seem to figure out that they are alienating the vast middle ground of America with their polarizing politics. The best thing that could happen in the United States politically is for certain very wealthy and philanthropic individuals (Buffett and Gates come to mind) to take some of their dollars and use them to build the framework of a third (centrist) political party. Remove the extremists on both sides from their position of influencing the politics of the parties and tearing apart the country. Get back to government for the people - ALL the people.

And yes, it matters what Huckabee thinks. He could become our president and sets direction for the country. It matters whether he has an open attitude toward science or will dismiss it due to his belief system. It's disingenious for Huckabee to state that his personal beliefs are not relevant in the election - how many of his supporters would still be following him if he converted to become a (gasp) Mormon?

Creationism means that you say, "I can't possibly believe that the complexity of life on the Earth could have come about on its own! I believe that it had to have been designed by some infinitely MORE complex Creator, who himself came about on his own!"

I'll preface by saying I only found this blog, looking for the ridiculous quote from Huckabee... I'm certainly a proponent of evolutionary theory, by default. In fact, creationism, historically speaking, is merely a reaction to evolutionary theory. A bit of research on its origins will tell you that. And it must be noted that evolutionary theory says nothing about the origins of the universe, and yet so many of its critics bring that up. Anyway, I really wrote an adequate response to someone on the other side of the argument (a staunch evolutionist) back in 2005. As I really don't have the space, or inclination, to properly discuss the subject here, I'll point you to my response:

http://www.akook.com/2005/06/is-evolution-threat-to-religious.html

This point is an important one and I wish people would stop misinterpreting both sides of the equation.

Jim, I want to apologize for my earlier post. It came out as immature and inappropriate. I did not mean for it to come across as an attack on you, your beliefs, or christianity in general, but after rereading it I realize that is how it reads.

What I wanted to express is a very different point: Huckabee is running for the most powerful public office, he seems to strongly base much of his political stance on his christian religious beliefs, and he claims not to believe in evolution due to these religious beliefs. Since there is already very much controversy regarding this issue in the public school system, I am afraid of a president who might use his religious beliefs as a basis to alter the curriculum of public science instruction. (I want to say that I feel it is a different matter completely if we are discussing home-schooling).

The entire situation seems to me like it may someday be looked back upon with repulsion (didn't Americans living in the 19th century sometimes justify slavery using quotes from the bible?). I have different social and religious backgrounds than the majority of my fellow Americans, and in my opinion, popular religious beliefs are all too often interjected into public matters within the US.

I believe that if Huckabee has enough influence to become president and he supports weaving christian religious teachings into the public science curriculum in the US, it would come with severe disregard to science and to religious freedoms.

By the way, I've always had politically conservative beliefs and used to identify with (and vote for) republican candidates. However, they have lately been relating to voters and political issues more and more through their religious beliefs, and it seems that the party itself is pushing an even more christian-oriented focus than it traditionally has in the past. Even though I've never felt I was a liberal, I will probably vote for one in the upcoming presidential election for the first time because the thought of living in a nation with such a religious influence within its state structure sounds much too similar to what it might be like to live in a country such as Iran.

How can we trust someone THIS OUT OF TOUCH with the scientific community to be president? This man REEKS of ignorance. I believe the Earth is flat, and the holocaust never happened. My ideas MUST be taught alongside the current geography/history standards!

For evidence/proof of evolution in a nice, visual vehicle, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0

You can have a supernatural being and evolution. Why not? Science hasn't disproved that yet. You just can't have the Christian God of the Bible and evolution. The two are mutually exclusive.

Evolution is always singled out as a threat to the validity of the Bible, but it's far from being the only one. The Bible is full of things that we reject today. Christians just chose to ignore them.

Evolution is a theory that would be easy to disprove if false. A single fossil in the wrong rock layer or a single DNA mis-match would do it. Evolution doesn't demand any faith at all. It just is the best explanation for what we see around us.

To take that idea a step further, there might well be some kind of organising principle to the universe that is currently beyond the reach of science. Let's call that thing a deity. Since nearly all human beings have some kind of spiritual awareness, let's assume that we are all responding to that deity.

Since the thousands of religions and sects and denominations are mutually incompatible, the greatest probability is that they've all got it wrong.

So a God might exist. What is absolutly certain though, is that He isn't anything like the Christian God of the Bible, who is impossible on his own terms and incompatible with what we know about the world.

The simplest proof that Christianity is wrong is to consider this: if God is timeless and universal, then belief in Him ought to be as well.

But this is not the case. A minority of the world's most devoutly religious people are Christian, and people only become Christian when exposed to other Christians. God can't do it by Himself.

A quick glance at the history of Judaism will tell you that God, or Yahweh, was invented around 4,000 BCE. He simply didn't exist before then or hadn't bothered to reveal Himself because the oldest religions date back some 70,000 years.

God and evloution do not mix. The textbook description of evolution is "a completly random process that modifies the vehicle of life". Note the "completley random". This implies that no outside interactions can be involved, including creating the process of evolution.

I have enjoyed reading this forum as it has been a clean discussion with little name calling/insults. Please keep it that way. Please do not bless me either, I believe in making my own luck.

Is it possible anyone in our nation would vote for a man that believes the supernatural hero from a really old novel exists???

I thought the people with such silly superstitions were a part of the time when we thought the earth was flat.

I understand there are "people of faith" in our country. I've driven across it and seen the sad population we hide in the middle. I've even seen the tacky bumper stickers they place on their cars. But isn't it all like being a Star Trek fan? Humiliating and obsessive at the same time, but nothing you'd base a meaningful decision on?

These must be the same people that watch that awful show with bad karaoke.

Jim, "the frequency of change" is something other than evolution. You are trying to say when evolution happens, not how it happens or what it is.

Evolution is "a completly random process that modifies the vehicle of life". God can't fit into evolution. According to christians, God created Adam and Eve in his image, he didn't make them into his image. So evolution can't fit into christian thesim either.

Whomever said that evolution is "the reduction of genes" is incorrect. Evolution may add or remove genes but it is not pureley the reduction of genes.

My name's not "Jim." And you're wrong. I've already defined the term and if you won't bother looking it up for yourself, then we're done here. This is basic Biology, my friend (albeit, on the university level).

Instead of looking up scientific terms in the dictionary (which deals with colloquialisms and common usage), try actually picking up a scientific text.

I have bothered to look it up. You have defined something that is not evolution. Evolution is not described as "The frequencey of change". What you are saying is the how often evolution happens. Evolution is defined as "mutations in genetic information" not the frequency of genetic changes.

This is not biology on a university/college level. We are disputing the definition of evolution, which I learned back in 8th grade.

I would suggest reading the first chapter or two of "Defeating darwinism by opening minds" by Phillip E. Johnson. Don't bother to read past the first two chaters. This book explains why evolution and theism don't mix in the first chapter. Yes, I read the books of my opponent.

For a decent article on evolution (in terms of biology), the Wikipedia entry is actually really, really, ridiculously good (and it cites an additional 174 sources, currently): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

The FAQ at Talk Origins has been around for a long, long time (1994), was written excluslively by scientists (mostly biologists), in an attempt to provide mainstream answers to scientific questions, and is widely accepted in the scientific community. You can read a specific entry, relevant to this discussion here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html

I suggest you read the entire general FAQ as well: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

Both of these sources are readable and intelligible. If read thoroughly, I'm certain a reasonable person will better understand evolution (in terms of biology), evolutionary theory, and science (how it operates, its methodology, etc.) in general.

Instead of citing non-specialists (and eight grade biology teachers) and being intellectually dishonest, try actually going STRAIGHT TO THE SOURCE with reference to these issues.

I simply suggested that you read a part of that book. I have yet to quote from this or use any knowedge from this book or Phillip E. Johnson, not that I ever would.

I said that I understood the definition of evolution (and how it worked) in 8th grade, not that I was taught about evolution in 8th grade.

I will look at your sources after I finish this post. Something that I still notice is that you have not accepted what the meaning/definition of evolution is. I would repeat my previous description of evolution but I don't wan't to appear closed minded by repeating the same thing over and over.

After 4 years of college, 4 years of medical school and 8 years of residency and fellowship it still frightens me that the ignorant and uneducated 'Faithests' (yes I made that word up) have a chance at running the country and influencing future generations. I weep for the future of the human race.

Anonymous has hit the nail on the head. Religion occupies a fuzzy place in our collective mentality. Not reliable or 'real' enough to base any serious decisions on - hence our government, police and courts are strictly secular - and at the same time yet not quite fake enough to be fully rejected, like Santa Claus, or ghosts.

I find it interesting that Tony Blair kept his religion a secret in England until he left politics. The English regard US-style expressions of religious belief with horror, and as something that has nothing to do with the serious matter of running the country.

That description is defining what a genetic mutation is, a change in the sequence of genes.

Evolution is a process of genetic mutation and natural selection. Macroscopic evolution takes millions of years to occur. Since Christians believe the earth is a mere six thousand years old, evolution can’t possibly fit into their methodology-unless their book needs another revision (mind you, the all knowing god’s work needs to be corrected, again).

Besides, a deity can't manipulate genetic code. If a deity does, evolution becomes creationism and its not, its science.

According to Christians, God created Adam and Eve in his image; he didn't make them into his image. Evolution and theism can't mix because changing either, just a little, invalidates both. There is no wobble room here.

Who said anything about New Land Creationism? You're bordering a straw man argument with that presupposition. Anyway, the best way I can rebut is to repost a response to an article I made back in June of 2005. Oddly enough, it was the exact same argument and after reading it over, I'd said much of the same things I'm saying now. Either way, here it is (I've not included a link to the article I was originally responding to because it's really not that important with regards to this particular discussion):

I read the above article by Eugene Volokh earlier today, and found his commentary on the evolutionism/creationism debate to be the ordinary and expected polarizing viewpoint purporting science and religion as coexistive. Though his belabored point came across to me, I am highly doubtful that most would understand the real problem here: the fact that there really is no debate between evolutionism and creationism at all. He concludes with:

"Yet scientific popularizers and educators have to deal with the fact that in our society, many people are still religious, and still accept descriptive religion (at least ostensibly). If the popularizers and educators describe science as taking no stand on the existence or influence of God, and as leaving such questions to others, I think they’ll have great success; and, whether they want to or not, they will indeed further undermine descriptive religion. But if they insist, in my view unnecessarily, that the standard scientific theory does take a stand that God is not influencing the world -- and that accepting evolution as the best scientific hypothesis while seeing God’s hand in its operation is an inferior conclusion that is worthy of scientific criticism -- then they will encounter much more resistance."

Though he may not be doing so on purpose, he's really just polarizing the two issues--forcing science into a box he's created with his straw man argument with regards to the "scientific standard" that evolutionary theory posits. For more on that, please read his article. I did comment directly on the Huffington Post site, however, the response itself--though slightly contingent on his article--is basically self-sufficient; and so here it is:

First of all, the “standard scientific theory” with regards to evolutionary theory is not as stated above; rather, evolutionary theory is simply the frequency of change in alleles—in a given population—from one generation to the next.

You’ve touched on an all too common misunderstanding of evolutionary theory—and science in general, for that matter: that somehow, not dealing with god (and in this case, we are clearly discussing the god of the Abrahamic religions) is synonymous to denying god as a potential mover or designer, and essentially, that god “had no part in this process.” Simply put, given the empirical nature of science, metaphysical things, as such, have no place in scientific theories.

Science deals with the corporeal world and demonstrates said theories by virtue of testability, repeatability and verifiability. “God”—a word, a concept, an idea, a symbol of belief, etc.—cannot be introduced into scientific theory because scientific theory is bound by methodology (cf., scientific method). And what is “scientific theory”? Well, it’s certainly not an opinion or a hypothesis; a scientific theory is simply a collection of correlating facts.

Is creationism a “theory” then? Using our scientific terminology it cannot be—given, the only “evidence” of creationism lies in the Bible. And let’s try not to forget that a) the Bible is not a scientific text, b) the Bible never claims to be a scientific text, and c) the “creationism” referenced here began as a movement in the late nineteen-hundreds, following Darwin’s Origin of the Species. Instead of addressing problems with Darwin’s theory (of natural selection—now considered a mechanism of modern evolutionary synthesis), this movement immediately constructed a red herring by ignoring the premises and jumping at the seemingly abject conclusion—that there is no intelligent designer. Either way, we are talking about apples and oranges here, folks.

Remember people, you can believe in the god of the Abrahamic religions, while accepting modern evolutionary synthesis. You can believe in “intelligent design.” However, you cannot be a “creationist” as referenced in the above article, and accept modern evolutionary synthesis, since this movement of creationism—commonly referred to Young Earth or New Land Creationism—was a knee-jerk reaction to early Darwinian evolutionary theory.

I encourage all interested parties to take a detailed look at reputable references like Wikipedia or TalkOrigins, before perpetuating these detrimental misapplications of evolutionary theory.

According to you (you are correct here),“Science deals with the corporeal world and demonstrates said theories by virtue of testability, repeatability and verifiability. “God”—a word, a concept, an idea, a symbol of belief, etc.—cannot be introduced into scientific theory because scientific theory is bound by methodology (cf., scientific method). And what is “scientific theory”? Well, it’s certainly not an opinion or a hypothesis; a scientific theory is simply a collection of correlating facts.“

You yourself have said it. “God”—a word, a concept, an idea, a symbol of belief, etc.—cannot be introduced into scientific theory because scientific theory is bound by methodology (cf., scientific method).

Scientific theory and theism can’t mix. They can not combine in any way without changing the other in a way that is still retains what the original meaning was.

Yes, I can see how I am using a “straw-man argument”. It is the only course of action I have not already taken as I have already correctly defined your definitions of words and clarified the process of evolution.

You've not clarified anything. You've only made the argument that much more confusing. Go back and read EVERYTHING I said. And also re-read the original argument you made that I took issue with. I stated clearly that one can believe in a "godhead figure" and still "accept evolutionary theory." You have taken that to mean fundamental Christianity (which baffles me) and have completely construed my meaning. You've still not completely accepted the actual, biological definition of evolution. But most importantly, you still miss the point:

People can believe in "god" a creator--in "Intelligent Design"--and still accept science for what it is. For a reasonable person understands that science is scientific and god belief is not--nor does it claim to be.

Do not deal only with fundamentals and creationists because that's not all that's out there. And what you, or I, believe or do not believe is irrelevant to this discussion. What is relevant is that many people out there strongly believe in a god creator, and still accept evolutionary theory as a credible scientific explanation concerning how things change over time.

I don't know how much more simplistic I can get. What began as a simple pointing out of a hasty generalization you made, turned into a biological discussion (of which I still think you need to do a bit of reading), and now we're back to the beginning and my point is still fuzzy in your head.

Really take a few moments--perhaps a few days--and re-read everything here and really delve into my sources. You might learn something about evolutionary theory and you might also learn something about the Abrahamic religions.

And with that, I leave you. I can't entertain this discussion anymore. I haven't the time, nor the inclination. Best of luck.

For those of you who believe that evolution is a fact and that every scientist believes it, do yourselves a favor and start actually looking at the body of scientific work disputing its validity...religion aside.

Check the following link and please try to keep an open mind - there are 5 parts:

I never said that you can't believe in god and evolution. I said "God can't fit into evolution". Look who isn't reading now.

God is a supernatural being. Science does not rely on and can't include supernatural beings because science relies on natural occurrences. So, if you want to include god as a mechanism for evolution, in a philosophical debate, that’s fine. But the theory of evolution is a scientific theory and science is, by definition, exclusive of the supernatural.

I'm sorry if this is hard to follow, I wrote it as I watched the video. As for the Youtube videos:

Part I

Darwin didn’t rebel against Christianity.

Nice, “Carl marks, an atheist and the originator of communism”. What does communism have to do with evolution? Nothing, I saw that attempt to associate atheism with “evil”. How the hell was evolution fundamental in the creation of communism?

We have observed one form of life evolve into another. Look at pests, they become resistant to pesticides because the ones that have superior genes can survive against them. Yes, a worm could potentially turn into a superior being similar to Homo-sapiens, given billions of years, not millions.

The earth is old. New rock have been forming much faster that old rocks have been staying. If I have a very old house, am I likely to have all the original material in that house?

It is true that most genetic mutations are fatal. However, some of those changes are beneficial. Over time, there are enough beneficial changes to make an organism qualify as a new species when compared to its ancestors.

For an incomplete and very short list of common transitional form please visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils. It would be more credible if this video showed these scientists contradicting themselves. Because of erosion and lack of fossilization in the first place, there are some gaps. We have enough transitional forms to accurately prove that they exist.

Can we see a copy of this quote from doctor Peterson? Darwin said he had a lack of transitional forms because they had not been discovered yet, see above link.

Monkeys didn’t turn into humans, monkeys and humans shared a common ancestor that turned into two distinct species. Those species eventually evolved into what they are today.

I already addressed the issue of evolution with insects becoming resistant to pesticides. To clarify, those are minor changes. If you have enough minor changes you will get a noticeable macroscopic change.

The “missing links that troubled Darwin” have been found. There is no misrepresentation (see “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils”). Please stop repeating yourself, its getting boring and becoming a waste of my time.

Those “prehuman” footprints are called “Paluxy river manprints”. It was a hoax and has been disproven. For more information about this see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html about halfway down the page.

The Homo neanderthalensis (Neanderthals) is not part of the evolutionary chain that lead to homo sapiens (humans), you are thinking of homo cromagnum (cromagnums). That “pig” AKA “Nebraska man” was a hoax

The bursts in evolution are real and are not some cheap ploy to keep evolution alive. Some of these bursts were because of enviromental changes. Some examples include the oxygen rich period called the carboniferous period which was caused by the evolution of spores which enabled more plants. More plants means more oxygen, more oxygen means more animals. Another example of an evolutionary burst is when organisms could become multicellular, enabling them to become insanely more complex. What caused the video to bring this up? “lack of transitional forms”. Once again, look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils. I have already coved this and recall saying not to bring this up, why am I answering the same question a third time? I’m beginning to feel like I’m on a reality show.

This “instant reptile to bird” thing is bullshit. Stop looking for a “brick wall” where a reptile suddenly becomes a bird. You can find it because it evolution doesn’t work like that.

“the scientific evidence for creationism is much stonger than the evidence of evolution”. I’ll cite my evidene, you site yours? As a token of good will, genetic markers caused by inactive retroviruses and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils.

Evolution has been observed, look at the pesticide resistant pests or the evolution of a microorganism.

I’m not sure what this “humanism” is but we have scientific evidence to support evolution. “Parents will not say anything about something taught in the classroom that disturbs them”, untrue. Lookup the “Dover trial”. See also, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html.

Here we are again, associating atheism with the soviet union. Guess what, the soviet union isn’t the only country presenting evolution as fact. There is this country called the United States of America that does it to.

Scientists don’t want creationism taught in public schools any more that preachers want evolution taught in Sunday school.

“The only approach is to present all the scientific information to children and let them make up their own minds”. We do present all the scientific information to children. The government doesn’t force the children to believe in evolution either, they can make up their own minds if they want to.

Creationism is not non-religious. It requires a higher being to be creationism and that higher being is god(s/es/esses).

The relevant discussion is not what the definition of evolution is, it's whether or not you feel comfortable with a presidential candidate whose self described "faith" (belief without need of facts) causes him to disregard a stack of scientific facts.

There is no controversy about evolution, other than what some people who don't like it stir up, and that controversy is largely confined to the US. In other industrialized nations, as in the scientific community itself, evolution is *very* widely accepted. I could footnote, but that would probably be boring, so I won't bother at this time.

If a person finds a scientific theory distasteful, or in conflict with philosophical (not scientific) beliefs, that does not reduce its validity.

Nor should the word "theory" be misunderstood. Unlike the colloquial definition of theory as a guess or idea, scientific theories undergo rigorous examinations, are supported by facts, and allow predictions to be made. When such predictions turn out to be true, they validate the theory.

Other scientific theories include germ theory, relativity, and much of mathematics, yet we can use them to make medicines, nuclear power plants, and computers. Still, they are "only" theories.

My point is that Huckabee has STATED that he puts irrational and controversial beliefs ahead of science facts. That makes me wonder if he will do the same when it comes to making important political decisions. Mr. Huckabee, should Iran be invaded as it might have nuclear weapons? Should the decision be influenced by the fact that they are inimical to Isreal, and threatn the dominance of your religious beliefs? What if your god "spoke" to you and said "nuke them first"?

I can think of 3 governments which are *heavily* influenced by religious fundamentalism that the US has recently been involved with: Afghanstan (under the Taliban), Iraq (Shiites vs. Sunnis), and Iran. Other Western governments are not so influenced by religion as we in the US are, and our fascination with the religious beliefs of our candidates puzzles their citizens.

If we, in the US, want to continue down the road paved by other heavily fundamentalistic nations, then we should endorse candidates with fundamental beliefs.

If, instead, we want to uphold the constitution (specifically the establishment clause), then we must divorce right-wing religious influence from politics.

Reducing the question to one of whether humans came from monkeys misses a tremendous amount of what science has taught us. I believe the universe, and perhaps God are more marvelous for being 15 billion years old than for being, as creationists tell us, 6,000 years old.

Science education needs to go back to the beginning of the universe with the big bang. From nothing came everything. It started with positive and negative energy, waves and particles that combined to form matter, hydrogen. Hydrogen was gathered by gravity, a mysterious force we still don’t fully understand, and formed stars. Gravity, heat and the resulting pressure fused hydrogen into helium and began the formation of all of the elements. Stars grew old, blew apart and elements were spread throughout the universe to form what we see now.

Life could not have come about without the billions of year process of forming elements from basically nothing.

I for one, marvel at the hand of God in all of this.

“Evolution” is generally seen as the process on Earth wherein elements combined into self replicating molecules that, over billions of years either were successful at reproducing and surviving in their environment or not. The survivors found niches where they could be successful and, by natural selection, were culled to where the most successful survived and the others didn’t. Each mutation that resulted in a more successful organism carried with it the best of the “parents” and developed new and more successful adaptations. It took a very long time. The planet changed life and life changed the planet. The environment creates opportunity and life takes advantage to fill the niche.

I understand the frustration of those who perceive that God is left out of science. Science deals with the measurable, the concrete. It does not disprove God to embrace science, but it does not prove God either. Faith should be arrived at in homes and churches, not schools.

Whether we think the universe is 6,000 or 15,000,000,000 years old we still need to ponder the questions of faith. Evolution still doesn’t answer the question of what caused the big bang. The laws of motion, the dualistic (particle/wave) nature of energy and the forces of nature have guided the development of the universe into something that supports consciousness, in us. Consciousness, God’s or ours, is not readily explained by science.

I love the metaphorical beauty I see in the Bible. I don’t expect the prophets of old to have spent their time finding literal descriptions of how the universe was created. They got what was important. A question as to how long a day was before there was a sun is pointless to faith. That we have the capacity to ponder such questions is the miracle.

We have the capacity to understand what an incredible universe we live in. We are given tools to manipulate our universe. We can preserve what billions of years has made suitable for us (stewardship) or we can commit suicide as individuals or as a species.

Perhaps that is what is meant by our having been created in the image of God.

Jake, listen to yourself, you're the one who believes in throwing dice.

Because of your unbelief, you have to explain everything by large expanses of time and chance happenings.

Nonsense. I don't have to explain everything at all. I'm completely comfortable with knowing that we don't know everything. But we do know some things for certain.

And we know enough to know that the Bible is a bunch of baloney written by superstitious peasants thousands of years ago. And the peasants didn't even agree with each other. There are lots of websites that list the contradictions and downright nonsense and immorality in the Bible - I won't do it here.

So why on earth should intelligent people 'study' such silly fairy tales? Much less elect a person who believes in them.

Have your spirituality if it comforts you, but don't pretend that some areas of well-understood science are controversial, when they're not.

If He, in his infinite wisdom, had any intention of smiting me, he would have done it by now. Of course I may burn in Hell for all eternity, but I very much doubt it. If I do, I'll be joining most of the human race.

As for protection in storms, God didn't seem to care much about the religious folk of New Orleans. If there is a God, He's as likely to smite you as he is me.

Actually, no one should "burn in hell". Christian's God is supposed to be "all forgiving" and should therefore not send anyone to hell.

The point is, Huckabee has blatantly ignored scientific facts and has put his belief before science. This tells me that if he becomes president, he will do what is best for his ego. He won't take in all the facts and make an educated decision based on those facts.

Actually, yes, it certainly is, given the fact that both are scientific theories (a "theory," scientifically speaking, is merely a collection of corresponding facts). In terms of science, both hold the same weight. We've observed certain facts that have led us to said conclusions, whether it concerns the theory of evolution, the theory of gravity, the theory of plate tectonics, the theory of quantum mechanics, etc.

Wikipedia has a decent article on the scientific definition of "theory." Read it, and perhaps you'll modify your position.

Jim, Katrina was just weather. I don't believe God had any influence over it, mainly because he doesn't exist. I was just wondering how you can explain your God standing back and allowing terrible things to happen to innocent and / or religious people. People who pray desperately and devoutly to him, and he still smites them. That's gotta hurt.

Actually I'm a very contented person, who's happy to accept that our time on the planet is short, random and chaotic. I believe that meaning comes from making the best of it in the here and now and that makes me very calm - the opposite of angry and bitter.

And of course Genesis is allegorical. Duh. So are the plays of William Shakespeare. It's fiction - they're not meant to be taken at face value. But even if you take the 'God made evolution' line, it still contradicts Christian doctrine that mankind has a special place in the world, and is made in God's image. The whole point of evolution is that we are not special - we are quite literally related to all life on earth and we are constantly changing as our climate and environment changes around us.

As to this all knowing, loving and caring God. Where exactly is he when 4000+ servicemen and women are being killed in Iraq? Where is he when children are taken from their homes and assaulted and murdered? Or worse, when it happens in their home by someone who they trust? Where is this God when those least able to protect themselves are so brutally treated? Where is he when children starve to death every day on this earth?

I call Bullsh!T and challenge any scripture quoting, bible thumping evangelist to answer these questions with responses other than "it must have been their time. or God called them home."

XTC said it best in the song Dear God;"Dear god,Hope you got the letter,And I pray you can make it better down here.I dont mean a big reduction in the price of beer,But all the people that you made in your image,See them starving on their feet,cause they dont get enough to eat

From god,I cant believe in you.

Dear god,Sorry to disturb you,But I feel that I should be heard loud and clear.We all need a big reduction in amount of tears,And all the people that you made in your image,See them fighting in the street,cause they cant make opinions meet,About god,I cant believe in you.

Did you make disease, and the diamond blue? Did you make mankind after we made you? And the devil too!

Dear god,Dont know if you noticed,But your name is on a lot of quotes in this book.Us crazy humans wrote it, you should take a look,And all the people that you made in your image,Still believing that junk is true.Well I know it aint and so do you,Dear god,I cant believe in,I dont believe in,

I wont believe in heaven and hell.No saints, no sinners,No devil as well.No pearly gates, no thorny crown.Youre always letting us humans down.The wars you bring, the babes you drown.Those lost at sea and never found,And its the same the whole world round.The hurt I see helps to compound,That the father, son and holy ghost,Is just somebodys unholy hoax,And if youre up there youll perceive,That my hearts here upon my sleeve.If theres one thing I dont believe in...

Its you,Dear god."

And finally; No, we should not being electing a man who does not believe in evolution. We've had 7 years of a president who stayed true to his inane convictions and look what that has brought us.

So, if you dont believe in evolution, how do you explain dinosaur bones? And the thousands of years old human-like remains that arent quite human, arent quite ape? Did God make the dinos?

Dont get me wrong, I'm a christian, i believe in God, and i have enough faith in God to believe in evolution, not creationism. I believe God created the environment in which the Earth has evolved on its own.

Man wrote the Bible, Man, who is imperfect and error-prone, and who has evolved over time to be what we are today.

The Illusionist, hello to you, I didn't know the XTC song, but I LOVE it! Thanks for posting it here.

Jim, this is also not my own material, but it's a another classic and funny riposte to Christianianity. It's an open letter to the appalling Dr Laura Schlessinger.

Jim, your ridiculously lame "The fool says in his heart, "There is no God" ... Psalm 53" put me in mind of it.

The point being that the Bible is full of nonsense. Why take any of it seriously when so much of it is laughable ...

Here goes ...

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Let's be conservative and say there are 100 religions in the world all of which believe they are THE real religion. Well, that means 99 have to be wrong and only one can be right. Which one is right? My bet is all 100 are wrong! For the most part your religion and beliefs are governed by your indoctrination as a child, particularly with the biggie religions. If Jews and Muslims were born a few miles to the east or west, they would be in the "opposing" camp. Nothing magic going on here, just humans being humans.

Thank you Jim! All these scientists keep trying to use their "facts" and "reality" to justify evolution. Well guess what... I've got a book that was written 2,000 years ago by ancient people that refutes all their "evidence." Preach on!